Evangelical colleges paid to teach evolution

Published: 6 August 2002 (GMT+10)

Increasing numbers of evangelical colleges around the world are accepting large
monetary ‘awards’ for running courses that promote evolutionary teaching
and millions of years. It is not that evangelical colleges are being targeted specifically.
The US$10,000 (Aus$18,000) award is available to any tertiary institution that will
host an approved course. Half the money goes to the college and half to the lecturer
who runs the course.

Institutions that have already run such courses include Bible College of New Zealand
(BCNZ), Bible College of Queensland (BCQ), St Marks National Theological Centre
in Canberra, Tabor College in Adelaide, Oxford University in the UK, and Yeshiva
(Jewish) University in New York. They have all received funding from the John Templeton
Foundation in the USA to run courses on the relationship between science and religion.1

This funding is usually via or in conjunction with another body such as the American
Scientific Affiliation or the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, Berkeley,
USA, whose Science and Religion Course Program originated from and is funded by
the John Templeton Foundation.

Students attending one such course, run by an evangelical Bible college, reported
that the programme was well presented and interesting. But the two-week course never
touched on the implications of evolution and millions of years for the Gospel of
Jesus Christ or the implications for the authority of Scripture. The lecturers were
theistic evolutionists and the possibility of Creation in six days was not presented
as a serious option. In fact, that position tended to be disparaged. The recommended
reading was either pro-millions-of-years or against the 6-day Creation view. Some
genuine seekers of truth were observed to be strongly influenced to accept evolution
over millions of years because of the structure and teaching of the course.

What is the John Templeton Foundation?

The John Templeton Foundation was founded in 1987 in the USA by billionaire Sir
John Mark Templeton, a highly successful pioneer of globally diversified mutual
funds, who also created the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion in 1973.

The John Templeton Foundation describes itself as ‘a non-profit grant making
organization.’2 It says its
grants program goal is ‘to create a “responsible dialogue” about
the relationship between science and religion, and to restore that discussion to
the province of the research university.’3
One way it does this is to fund courses and conferences on this subject at tertiary
institutions around the world. Concerning all this, the Foundation's Web site says:

‘… we neither encourage nor generally consider unsolicited proposals.
Rather the Foundation chooses to design large-scale, cost-effective, and high impact
projects, determining the best individual or organization to administer and implement
these initiatives.’2

The John Templeton Foundation thus limits its financial support to courses and conferences
that are in line with its own philosophy and ethos. To understand the Templeton
philosophy and ethos we will first consider the Templeton Prize.

Templeton Prize

The Templeton Prize is ‘awarded annually on the decision of a panel of judges
from religions of the world today’4
to ‘a living individual who has shown extraordinary originality advancing
the world's understanding of God and/or spirituality.’5
It is a monetary award, intentionally set at a higher value than the Nobel Prize
and is currently worth 700,000 sterling.

It is important to understand that, to the Templeton Foundation, the term ‘God’
is not confined to the God of the Bible. The Foundation's Web site says:

‘The Prize is intended to help people see the infinity of the Universal Spirit
still creating the galaxies and all living things and the variety of ways in which
the Creator is revealing himself to different people. We hope all religions may
become more dynamic and inspirational.’4

The Web site continues: ‘The Templeton Prize does not encourage syncretism
… but rather it seeks to encourage understanding of the benefits of diversity.’3
Thus, ‘Nominations are sought for potential recipients from all nations and
religions of the world.’4

With the above aims in place, it is hardly surprising that the views of many of
the Prize recipients are detrimental to the very foundation on which Christianity
is built—the Bible. One of the current judges is Monshu Koshin Ohtani, ‘spiritual
leader of Jodo Shinshu Hongwanji-ha, one of Japan's largest Buddhist institutions.’6 And former judges have included
the Dalai Lama, Prof. Paul Davies, Prince Charles, and Nikkyo Niwano (co-founder
of the world's largest Buddhist lay organization, who also himself received the
Prize in 1979).4,7,8

In 2001, the recipient was the Rev. Canon Arthur Peacock, who has previously said:
‘The processes revealed by the sciences, especially evolutionary biology,
are in themselves God acting as creator’ [see also Templeton
Prize goes to panentheistic Darwinist].9
The 2000 Prize went to Freeman Dyson, a self-professed agnostic who believes that
if ‘God’ exists, he should be labelled a ‘sloppy manufacturer’
[see also Templeton Prize: a ‘Regress’ or Progress
in Religion?]. The 1999 recipient, evolutionist Ian Barbour, had this to
say:

‘Now we know that … evolution is God's way of creating. You simply
can't any longer say as traditional Christians that death is God's punishment for
sin. Death was around long before human beings. Death is a necessary aspect of an
evolutionary world … In a way it is more satisfying … than to see
it as a sort of arbitrary punishment that God imposed on our primeval paradise.’10

Problem: if death was not the punishment for sin, what does this do to
the whole reason for Christ's death on the cross?

It is true that Templeton Prize recipients have included some Bible-believing Christians,
such as Bill Bright of Campus Crusade for Christ in 1996, Chuck Colson in 1993 ‘for
establishing the world's largest prison ministry’, and Billy Graham in 1982
‘for using the power of broadcasting to share his religious message.’5
However, others have been from Buddhism,11
Hinduism,12 Islam,13 and Judaism,14
‘as well as some recipients, such as mathematical physicist Paul Davies in
1995, who adhere to no particular faith at all.’5

All of this shows that the Templeton Foundation in its philosophy and ethos is neither
Gospel-oriented nor concerned with upholding the authority of God's Word, the Bible,
but often rewards those who oppose Biblical Christianity.

The Templeton Science and Religion Course

The Foundation's Web site says: ‘In 1994 the John Templeton Foundation developed
the Science & Religion Course Program to encourage the teaching of interdisciplinary
courses in science and religion at colleges, universities and seminaries worldwide.’15 The course ‘focuses on
the relation between contemporary physics, cosmology, technology, evolutionary and
molecular biology, ecology and theology and ethics’. It is administered by
the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (CTNS), which offers grants of
US$10,000 (funded by the John Templeton Foundation and divided equally between the
course instructor(s) and the host institution) to colleges and universities around
the world to run the course (or one sufficiently similar to qualify).

A Templeton-funded 10-day course was held at the Bible College of Queensland (BCQ)
in January 2002 and was titled The Quest for Meaning: The Dialogue between Science
and Theology; the six-day course at St Marks National Theological Centre
in Canberra in January 2002 was titled Creation and Complexity 2001; the
8-week (2 hours per week) course at Tabor College in Adelaide in October-November
2001 was titled An Introduction to Science and Christianity; and the one-day
conference at BCNZ in June 2001 was titled Evolution and Ecology 2001.

Understandably, these courses all follow a common pattern, i.e. the organisers have
prominent speakers, such as professors and lecturers or research scientists from
the science departments of secular universities, to begin the course by giving addresses
on their fields of science. They then present addresses from professors and lecturers
in theology, which purport to show that there is no conflict between ‘science’
(i.e. evolution) and theology. However, the conclusion is always that Christians
must rethink their theology in terms of ‘science’, rather than vice
versa. The lists of speakers advertised and the authors of the reading lists are
from the theistic evolution camp in every case that we know of.

One can only hope that Christian Bible and Theological Colleges that run Templeton-funded
courses on Science and Religion are oblivious to the Templeton philosophy and ethos
(gleaned from the Templeton Web sites listed) incorporated in these courses, when
they proclaim that they have won a ‘Prestigious Award’ and then proceed
to run courses that basically seek to interpret Christianity in such a way as to
make it agree with the theories of modern science, seemingly regardless of whether
these theories oppose the Bible or not.

The problem

The idea of running a course or conference on ‘bridging the gap between the
Bible and science’ could be laudable, if it were not for the fact that where
modern science deals with origins it is based on strict naturalism. This is the
view that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural, as opposed to supernatural,
causes and laws. In discussing naturalism, the Skeptic's Dictionary says
that ‘naturalism makes God an unnecessary hypothesis and essentially superfluous
to scientific investigation.’16
Thus the terms ‘naturalistic’ and ‘atheistic’ as used here
are synonymous.

With God excluded from the realm of discussion in scientific research, evolutionism
has taken over. Currently, the ‘big bang’ is the naturalistic conjecture
as to how everything began. Chance combination of inorganic molecules is the naturalistic
opinion of the cause of the beginning of life. And evolution is the naturalistic
theory by which animal life has evolved into Homo sapiens. However, these
conjectures, opinions and theories should not be labelled as if synonymous with
‘modern science’. Rather, they are the conjectures, opinions and theories
of some modern scientists. Collectively they form the logical basis for
the false religion of humanism.

Naturalism by definition excludes the possibility of the truth of Genesis Creation.

So the problem for Christians is that if one begins with the foundational premise
that the claims and pronouncements of naturalistic origins science are all true,
and then tries to build a path from this to God, one ends up far away from the living,
miracle-working God of the Bible.

When Christians assume that 'science' has proved evolution, they try to salvage
belief in God by introducing theistic evolution to those portions of the Bible which
do not otherwise fit the evolutionary paradigm. But no-one has any authority from
God to add to or to change what He has said. Templeton Prize winner Ian Barbour
has said: ‘Death is a necessary aspect of an evolutionary world … .’10
However, God says something entirely different! God says that death came into the
world as the result of the sin of the first man, Adam. Furthermore God's Word tells
us that both the need for and the outworking of the Gospel depend on this fundamental
fact.17

The Answer

What then should Christians think and teach about God, the Bible, and science?

First, the answer cannot be for Bible Colleges and churches to evolutionize the
Bible or Christianity. This merely reduces God to the before-mentioned ‘unnecessary
hypothesis’. And if we evolutionize God by saying that He used evolution,
we will merely be making a god in our own image (cf.
Exodus 32:1–2).

When an atheist hears a Christian say, ‘God used evolution,’ he is not
likely to be converted to Christ. Rather he is much more likely to react, ‘You
Christians acknowledge that evolution is true; it won't be long before you acknowledge
that God does not exist—after all if ‘God’ is good, why did he
create such a dog-eat-dog world?’ Evolutionism is a strategy of deception,
and many professing Christians who have embraced it have abandoned the faith. These
include Billy Graham's former high-profile colleague in evangelism, who was also
ironically (though coincidentally) surnamed Templeton.18
This is not surprising, because Jesus said that people who do not believe what Moses
wrote are not likely to believe in Him (John
5:46;
Luke 16:31). He also said that those who do not believe His words in
regard to earthly matters are not likely to believe what He says about heavenly
matters (John
3:12). Jesus Christ clearly stated that people were on Earth from the beginning
of Creation (Matthew
19:4;
Mark 10:6) not towards the end of a billions-of-years process [see also
Jesus and the age of the world]. And of course,
by definition, Christians are those who believe in Jesus Christ, who was fully God
and fully man, and through whom all things were created (John
1:1–18) — see Q&A: Jesus Christ.

The key issues

If Genesis was written as a literal and historic record, then evolution and millions
of years cannot be true. Bible Colleges, churches and individual Christians need
to recognise and acknowledge this basic fact. See Should Genesis
be taken literally?19

There are two major worldviews. These are the Christian worldview, which is based
on the historicity of the Bible, including Genesis, and thus on the truth of Creation,
the Fall, the Flood and Babel, and also on the fact of Christ's death, resurrection
and future coming again. The other is the non-Christian worldview, which is based
on evolution, billions of years, and death and struggle before sin entered the world.
There is no conflict between science and theology when both are based on the Christian
worldview. Similarly, there is no conflict when science and theology are both based
on the non-Christian worldview. Conflict, for Christians, arises when they try to
base their science on the non-Christian worldview and their theology on the Christian
worldview. No matter how hard one tries, one cannot make two opposites agree.

Thus Bible Colleges, churches and Christians should always start their
thinking with the Word of God properly exegeted. Therefore any analysis of the past
must recognise the reality of the recent 6-day Creation and the global
Flood, and interpret the scientific evidence accordingly.

Bible Colleges, churches and Christians should never begin a conference, a dialogue,
or even their own thinking with the assumption that evolution is true. Rather they
need to understand that many of the claims of naturalistic origins science have
not been proven and many are contrary to the Word of God.

Bible Colleges, churches and individual Christians have no mandate from God to re-interpret
His infallible Word to make it fit any currently prevailing fallible human opinion.

Christians do not need to rescue the Bible when there is a perceived conflict with
‘modern science’ by re-interpreting the Bible. Rather we should be questioning
the ‘science’. ‘Science’ does not speak with more authority
than God's Word about origins and the age of the Earth, because, as noted American
evangelical theologian Dr John MacArthur says in his new book The Battle for the
Beginning (right), ‘Scripture, not science, is the ultimate test
of all truth. The further evangelicalism gets from that conviction, the less
evangelical and more humanistic it becomes (emphasis added).’20

John MacArthur also writes:

‘Evangelicals who accept an old-earth interpretation of Genesis have embraced
a hermeneutic [i.e. interpretation] that is hostile to a high view of Scripture.
They are bringing to the opening chapters of Scripture a method of Biblical interpretation
that has built-in antievangelical presuppositions. Those who adopt this approach
have already embarked on a process that invariably overthrows faith. Churches and
colleges that embrace this view will not remain evangelical long (emphasis added).’21

Addendum: This Comment/clarification was sent to all Email
News (Australia) subscribers shortly after the above article appeared

Re: TABOR COLLEGE

Since our Email News (Australia)3:14 alerting you to
this article on Templeton-Foundation-funded courses run by various evangelical Bible
colleges, several people have enquired to Tabor College in Adelaide, South Australia
(no connection to a similarly named US institution), and have received a response
which has caused them concern about our statements above. Tabor College themselves
have also contacted us and discussions have ensued.

We wish to state the following:

We (firmly but gently) stands by the facts of our article.

We took considerable steps to ensure accuracy prior to publication, i.e.:

We invited the Board of BCQ here in Brisbane to talk to us, and showed them the
substance of our article-the facts were not disputed.

We viewed copies of BCNZ advertising which openly advertised the Templeton link,
and which included names of Tabor faculty.

We viewed Templeton (and openly Templeton-linked) Web sites which made it clear
that Tabor faculty members had been awarded the grants concerned, which are always
shared 50:50 with the respective colleges.

We already had firsthand, eyewitness knowledge of the Templeton-funded course in
question at Tabor. Our South Australian representative, Peter
Sparrow, and another member of the SA Friends of CMI group, attended this course between
them prior to the Templeton link/strategy surfacing. Both became deeply concerned
at the liberal/naturalistic philosophy undergirding the course.

Peter formally shared this concern to Tabor at the highest level, well before our
article appeared, but with no positive outcome.

We also viewed lists of recommended reading materials for the Tabor course, and
we viewed the Templeton publication which was handed out to students with a recommendation
to subscribe.

Our intention with the article was to report the facts and alert the Christian public
to this Templeton strategy, not to undermine any institution. We are very concerned
at what has been happening across the world, and take it very seriously, because:

Templeton are totally open about their evolution-based ethos, which sees belief
in Genesis (as real history) as a major ‘stumbling block’ to ‘progress
in religion’.

Though Templeton does not of course overtly tell any colleges what to teach, courses
which are ‘out of line’ with their philosophy would obviously have much
less chance, if any, of attracting funding. Thus:

All the courses we looked at were almost identical in terms of their advertised
thrust, their authority sources, and their recommended reading material, which is
heavily liberal/evolutionary.

At the Tabor course, evolution was directly addressed in a significant minority
of the lectures, and treated as a ‘given’, i.e. as fact. In the other
lectures of the course, the truth of the secular billions-of-years view of world
history was also assumed without question, and all else took place within that framework.
We respectfully do not believe that this is as it should be for an evangelical college.
IMPORTANT: We accept (and appreciate) that this does not reflect the position of
all Tabor faculty by any means, and that the faculty, including senior faculty concerned
with teacher education, includes those whose impeccable stance on the authority
of Scripture we would totally support. We believe this makes the matter even more
urgent and important, if anything. Particularly since enquiry by one of our supporters
reveals that the same course is set to be repeated.

We hope and pray that the result of all this might be that those in leadership at
many Colleges would be led to reevaluate the dangers of allowing such thinking (including
‘tolerating a wide variety of views’ on Genesis) to take hold in any
portion of any Christian institution. The history in Genesis, which is so clearcut
in the Bible and reinforced throughout the NT, is crucially foundational to the
very logic of the Gospel of Christ. We stand ready to provide a host of articles
demonstrating this, already on our Web site.

Choice of College

CMI has consistently advised people contemplating e.g. a Bible college to always
do their homework, particularly by communicating directly with the institution itself.
Sadly, today, it is no longer sufficient to seek reassurances about such things
as ‘Christ-centered’ or ‘Biblically-based’ or even ‘creationist’.
These words can have different meanings to different people, even within the same
institution.

In closing, we wish to encourage and commend all, whether working within or without
Christian organizations, who are making a stand for the Gospel and the authority
of God’s Word in all areas of life and thought—not just in matters of
‘faith and practice’, but in every arena the Bible enters into, including
where these touch upon the things of science and history.

References and notes

Some institutions that have received the US$10,000 ‘award’ are
listed at www.ctns.org,
25 July 2002. Select ‘News & Events’ and then ‘Course Winners for 2000’ or ‘Course Winners for 2001’. Return to text